Global Warming

[stillen]

In New York Scientists are are having a cobference on those who belive it is FALSE.

The scientist said the South Pole is the biggest its been in a long time the North pole the last two years has been growing.

Glenn Beck is covering this on his TV show it would be good to watch it.

[Robert Hall]

In New York Scientists are are having a cobference on those who belive it is FALSE.

The scientist said the South Pole is the biggest its been in a long time the North pole the last two years has been growing.

Glenn Beck is covering this on his TV show it would be good to watch it.

I wonder if these are legit 'scientists' or just some right-wing nutjobs..

[Satty]

I wonder if these are legit 'scientists' or just some right-wing nutjobs..

Right wing nutjobs

[balthazar]

Sometimes I wonder the same thing about those 'scientists' that believe it is TRUE.

[loki]

Sometimes I wonder the same thing about those 'scientists' that believe it is TRUE.

+1

If there isn't legit discussion about it, it's basically hysteria, which is how much of the media talks about it.

the guy that made the weather channel doesn't believe in it.

the Penn and teller's BS on global warming shows the extremes that some people will do for something they evidently know very little about....Sheeple

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Right wing nutjobs

Naturally...

I mean, god forbid we "right wing nutjobs" have a different opinion about a theory as opposed to believing everything we hear.

I can't wait until the liberals hype the world into such a global warming hysteria that us right wing nut jobs can justify not only another war for oil, but war within the states against ourselves *GASP!* for the sake of our survival!!!

[FAPTurbo]

http://crackle.com/c/Funny/futurama%3A_glo...6fc%3D1%26fx%3D Edited March 4, 2008 by Captainbooyah

[loki]

http://crackle.com/c/Funny/futurama%3A_glo...6fc%3D1%26fx%3D

futurama is pretty damn good.

I think i'll try to catch the show tonight... at least see what "has to be said"

[loki]

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/6794/

say what you will about Beck.... it's the interview with the founder of the weather channel.

[stillen]

Also he had on the President of Check Republic just relected by the way he is an economist he said Climatology is about the study of people and how to control them all this goes back to is the days when they said the earth was overpopulated.

Global warming is just to take the freedoms away and to limit developing countries he said this also.

The Scientist he had on one was from the Smithsonian and both had their doctorates very legit scientist.

[Satty]

Naturally...

Yadda, yadda, tadda....

My my, someone is being presumptuous. If he had asked "Scientists or left wing nutjobs?" about an Al Gore-led coalition, I would have replied "left wing nutjobs." Have you ever listened to the group that this thread is about? They really are right wing nutjobs and shouldn't be taken seriously as an environmental group, much the same way people shouldn't go to the E.L.F. for data and opinions on the other side.

I dont see how anyone can believe that global warming isn't at least somewhat caused by man. Do cars pollute? Yep, and they're man made. Do factories pollute? Yep, and they're man made. Do cow and other livestock let off a ton of methane? Yep, and increased demand for beef has led man to breed a lot of cattle.

Just the last couple of years have had some extremely odd weather patterns. Hell, in the past 5 days here we've had 80 degree weather and 5 inches of snow. Something tells me weather patterns were far more stable before humans came around and started polluting.

And the next civil war is probably going to be started by the south (naturally ) trying to keep the people living in the north who have been covered in a sheet of ice from moving down. :rolleyes:

[Drew Dowdell]

In New York Scientists are are having a cobference on those who belive it is FALSE.

The scientist said the South Pole is the biggest its been in a long time the North pole the last two years has been growing.

Glenn Beck is covering this on his TV show it would be good to watch it.

uh... no.

The north west passage opened up this summer for the first time in recorded history.

Yes, the Antarctic ice sheet is growing in height in the central region, but making just that one point is very misleading and quite dishonest.

There is an enormous amount of research that has been conducted on the poles and there is much more to the story than just the increase in snow in the middle of the continent. Indeed the coast is where the real action is.

The leading U.S. climate scientist Dr. James Hansen responded via email saying "The most precise data on the mass of the ice sheets, from the gravity satellite, show that, overall, Antarctica is losing mass, as is Greenland, even though East Antarctica is gaining a small amount of mass."

Also, it sits on a continent rather than on water that is above freezing - as in the north. The ice in the north is an average of 6 to 12 feet thick and is being warmed from beneath as well as above. This has a much larger impact on the North Polar Ice Cap.

It would seem that the north and south poles should react the same, but because of these gigantic differences they cannot. Antarctica is not the canary in the mine..........the canary is the Arctic, and it's telling the scientists that things are changing faster than they had thought possible.

[Drew Dowdell]

Naturally...

I mean, god forbid we "right wing nutjobs" have a different opinion about a theory as opposed to believing everything we hear.

I can't wait until the liberals hype the world into such a global warming hysteria that us right wing nut jobs can justify not only another war for oil, but war within the states against ourselves *GASP!* for the sake of our survival!!!

having a different opinion about a theory is one thing if they have honest and irrefutable evidence to support their argument. Disagreeing with a theory in the face of supporting evidence and without evidence to back up your argument = nutjob.

Also, if you believe that Exxon hasn't hired "Scientists" to go out and "disprove" global warming, I have some beach front property here in Pittsburgh to sell you.

[loki]

My my, someone is being presumptuous. If he had asked "Scientists or left wing nutjobs?" about an Al Gore-led coalition, I would have replied "left wing nutjobs." Have you ever listened to the group that this thread is about? They really are right wing nutjobs and shouldn't be taken seriously as an environmental group, much the same way people shouldn't go to the E.L.F. for data and opinions on the other side.

I dont see how anyone can believe that global warming isn't at least somewhat caused by man. Do cars pollute? Yep, and they're man made. Do factories pollute? Yep, and they're man made. Do cow and other livestock let off a ton of methane? Yep, and increased demand for beef has led man to breed a lot of cattle.

Just the last couple of years have had some extremely odd weather patterns. Hell, in the past 5 days here we've had 80 degree weather and 5 inches of snow. Something tells me weather patterns were far more stable before humans came around and started polluting.

And the next civil war is probably going to be started by the south (naturally ) trying to keep the people living in the north who have been covered in a sheet of ice from moving down. :rolleyes:

I can agree with the 2nd paragraph after the first sentence. but you're forgetting that there was alternative fuels that Ford was pushing....now gasoline is subsidized heavily, that's always a boon to make more/not look for alternatives.... farming ( raising food supply with the use of land, including livestock )..anything is practically subsidized, even not farming sometimes is subsidized, making those "products" lower priced thus increasing demand in the market place. Subsidies are a "leftist" policy, akin to socialism. global warming hysteria is about telling people what you can and can't do. If CO2 is pollution then can't fires be regulated. you better not exersize too much, you'll produce to much CO2 from all your aerobic workings.

Global warming is causing to address the symptoms, not the root cause (if it's true).

But, conversly, there are "right wing nut jobs" that think that being irresponsible with the land (from any other veiwpoint) is ok. it's not.

T Roosevelt is a great example of a lost part of "the right", setting up nation parks. that idea is socialist too, but very inline with conservation. with out getting it into the nation system "public property" and other peoples private property should be able to have the most stringent pollution laws as the people "holding the land" see fit.

what do you think about these statements?

[loki]

having a different opinion about a theory is one thing if they have honest and irrefutable evidence to support their argument. Disagreeing with a theory in the face of supporting evidence and without evidence to back up your argument = nutjob.

Also, if you believe that Exxon hasn't hired "Scientists" to go out and "disprove" global warming, I have some beach front property here in Pittsburgh to sell you.

if they are scientists, they're supposed to be ethical about their work, they wouldn't be good scientists if they just made up stuff to make sure the product was what the "people" hired them wanted it to be.

[Drew Dowdell]

if they are scientists, they're supposed to be ethical about their work, they wouldn't be good scientists if they just made up stuff to make sure the product was what the "people" hired them wanted it to be.

there have never been unethical scientists?

[ltdaniels]

i hear the founder of the weather channel wants to sue al gore for defrauding the public or something.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

The north west passage opened up this summer for the first time in recorded history.

The began keeping records of this in the 70s... not much of a recorded history. Prior to the Little Ice Age it was believed that a navigable route existed.

as you can see, dramatic climate changes in the past few million years are quite common.

although what i want to know is who invested all this time looking at soil samples to get this data?

Now im not saying that Humans play no part in this. I am quite sure that we can help exacerbate/retard trends... but just that... trends. So the Trillion dollar question is, is what humans can contribute to changing climates worth the huge expense of doing so? is a few trillion dollars worth a few tenths of a degree when its obvious that these crazy patterns have existed for at least a million years?

Edited March 5, 2008 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[Oracle of Delphi]

Isn't the world 4.5 billion years old? So this time scale is just a drop in the bucket.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Isn't the world 4.5 billion years old? So this time scale is just a drop in the bucket.

yes but the early half of the world was very very very very hot with tons of CO2 due to large amounts of volcanic activity. An environment which is not very similar to todays Earth.

Unfortunately, due to the earth recycling itself, we cant get soil/rock samples from the very beginning of the Earth.

[loki]

there have never been unethical scientists?

yeah....... but lots of them are employed by unethical "powers" look at the nazis for a totally clear example

i hear the founder of the weather channel wants to sue al gore for defrauding the public or something.

yeah. carbon credits.... it's pretty damn fraud like.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

You know, i got to thinking, since it looks like were hitting our "Peak" temperatures given my previously posted image, that means that within the next few thousands years or so we will start sinking into another cold period... which is, of course, far worse for humans and most other life forms than a warm climate...

[loki]

You know, i got to thinking, since it looks like were hitting our "Peak" temperatures given my previously posted image, that means that within the next few thousands years or so we will start sinking into another cold period... which is, of course, far worse for humans and most other life forms than a warm climate...

assuming the previous trends continue.

[Drew Dowdell]

yeah....... but lots of them are employed by unethical "powers" look at the nazis for a totally clear example

yeah. carbon credits.... it's pretty damn fraud like.

two words; Bush Administration .

two more words;

Exxon Mobil

[stillen]

Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg

Go get a copy good reading it lays the groundwork to todays liberal/progressive tells you where they are coming from because you understand history.

Thw word " Progressive " where does it come from ; it comes from when our soldiers were captured in the Vietnam war and the ones who cooperated were called Progressive then it came over here and well thats not a good monicker to carry.

Global Warming is just another movement by the people who said there were to many people in the world and were pushing population control like they know best how to govern people than the actual persons do.

RTR stillen

[Drew Dowdell]

yeah. carbon credits.... it's pretty damn fraud like.

What is "fraud like" with the idea that you have to pay to pollute?

[loki]

What is "fraud like" with the idea that you have to pay to pollute?

i think i'm going to heat my house with natural gas... or a fireplace..... that's pollution if you think CO2 is pollution

are you gonna be sued for pollution as well as arson... or is CA going to have to buy credits for the wild fires that happen there.

It's a "where does it end" fraud. We already have the EPA, and look how well it works...typically not well.

again, pollution is a bad thing, but if property laws were truly enforced, we'd need the EPA only for things that can't be obvious. If the EPA was really after polluters, they'd have to sue most of the corn growers and lots of pig farms in the USA. Over fertilizing the fields, run off into creeks > rivers..... run off of pig waste into rivers.... there's proof, it's the DEAD ZONE for some like 1000square miles around the mouth of the Mississippi. and it wouldn't be nearly as bad if farmers weren't subsidized to grow these high maintainence crops. instead of being able to grow whatever they want to make real income, not tax payed income.

am I missing something to your question, cause the "need" for carbon credits is a break down of the system we're supposed to have, free market, with limited regulation (at least federally).

[Drew Dowdell]

I like the idea of free markets, however I am quite cynical about the motivations of private companies. Exxon/Mobil, Toyota, Tyco, Enron, Adelphia Cable, Microsoft, Sony, Walmart....

do you really trust any of those companies to do the right thing for the common good?

If Exxon weren't regulated and threatened with fines, they would have no incentive to not pollute.

What carbon credit trading is doing is putting a different financial incentive on not polluting. If you're a major polluter, you have to pay into the carbon system.... that gives you an incentive to clean up your act. Once you're below the threshold level of pollution, you now get to sell the credits for pollution you don't create to the highest bidder. That gives a second financial incentive to you and the trading market price you set creates an additional incentive to other polluters. The money earned from selling carbon credits can be used <if the company is smart> to buy additional pollution reducing equipment and then get more carbon credits. I'm sure there is a point of diminishing returns, but this is a system that rewards investment in pollution control rather than penalizing for lack of pollution control. Rather than the money going to the government, the money is exchanged between companies. The system isn't sustainable in a static state, so the pollution threshold will have to be adjusted from time to time, which would be the sole role of the government.

If anything, carbon trading is MORE freemarket than just fining companies who don't comply with pollution law because it creates an entirely new market <like the stock market>, and government for the most part stays out of it other than setting the bar.

[Robert Hall]

I like the idea of free markets, however I am quite cynical about the motivations of private companies. Exxon/Mobil, Toyota, Tyco, Enron, Adelphia Cable, Microsoft, Sony, Walmart....

do you really trust any of those companies to do the right thing for the common good?

My experience working in large companies, both public and private, is that they are generally corrupt and fundamentally unethical...I don't trust them to do the right thing. But I'm a cynical contractor, so I'm in it for the money..

Edited March 6, 2008 by moltar

[Drew Dowdell]

My experience working in large companies, both public and private, is that they are generally corrupt and fundamentally unethical...I don't trust them to the right thing.

Can I get an AMEN!?!

[siegen]

RUN!!!!! Global warming is coming!!!

RRAAAARRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!! *CHOMP*CHOMP* (eats people and steps on cars)

[loki]

I like the idea of free markets, however I am quite cynical about the motivations of private companies. Exxon/Mobil, Toyota, Tyco, Enron, Adelphia Cable, Microsoft, Sony, Walmart....

do you really trust any of those companies to do the right thing for the common good?

If Exxon weren't regulated and threatened with fines, they would have no incentive to not pollute.

What carbon credit trading is doing is putting a different financial incentive on not polluting. If you're a major polluter, you have to pay into the carbon system.... that gives you an incentive to clean up your act. Once you're below the threshold level of pollution, you now get to sell the credits for pollution you don't create to the highest bidder. That gives a second financial incentive to you and the trading market price you set creates an additional incentive to other polluters. The money earned from selling carbon credits can be used <if the company is smart> to buy additional pollution reducing equipment and then get more carbon credits. I'm sure there is a point of diminishing returns, but this is a system that rewards investment in pollution control rather than penalizing for lack of pollution control. Rather than the money going to the government, the money is exchanged between companies. The system isn't sustainable in a static state, so the pollution threshold will have to be adjusted from time to time, which would be the sole role of the government.

If anything, carbon trading is MORE freemarket than just fining companies who don't comply with pollution law because it creates an entirely new market <like the stock market>, and government for the most part stays out of it other than setting the bar.

it is free market, but so is frauding people. and we persecute frauders too. I was saying... let's use an example. was it exxon or someone was polluting a river/stream that feeds into lake michigan... if the states test the water and it's above a regulation set by the states, then they set out to find the source and take legal action against the company, so could any person that has private property along the stream if they have a problem with it as well. Pollution has become something to push socialist legislation through federally. Free market and socialist programs can't coexist peacefully. somethings can't change overnight, ie. how many cars are on the road, but the legal system was supposed to be able to punish polluters through private property law. I don't hear about that anymore in the news and those problems are just thrown at the EPA to punish/suit/correct.

I agree it is a way to "hurt" bad companies, but some companies can't do &#036;h&#33; about it, like concrete makers, until someone discovers a better way to do it. I would think the ie concrete companies were forced to use a certain amount of it's capital to encourage research, would be a better way to "regulate" polluters instead of making them give money to "green" companies.

just thinking a little... carbon credits would have to be mandated, like in europe, to have any power, right? other wise it's just a "i feel better about my companies choices" thing. thus new regulations would stifle industrial growth without tech breakthroughs, and competition is the basis of free-markets.

sincerely, tell me i'm wrong, if i am, and explain why.

[loki]

Can I get an AMEN!?!

i would think that other than select companies, ie exxon... big ones that control the economy way to much, usually couldn't get by with expensive retrofits new regulations are making demanded while being ethical about everything,...?

Look at the future of diesel as an example at what regulations do to "free markets"...

[Drew Dowdell]

it is free market, but so is frauding people. and we persecute frauders too. I was saying... let's use an example. was it exxon or someone was polluting a river/stream that feeds into lake michigan... if the states test the water and it's above a regulation set by the states, then they set out to find the source and take legal action against the company, so could any person that has private property along the stream if they have a problem with it as well. Pollution has become something to push socialist legislation through federally. Free market and socialist programs can't coexist peacefully. somethings can't change overnight, ie. how many cars are on the road, but the legal system was supposed to be able to punish polluters through private property law. I don't hear about that anymore in the news and those problems are just thrown at the EPA to punish/suit/correct.

I agree it is a way to "hurt" bad companies, but some companies can't do &#036;h&#33; about it, like concrete makers, until someone discovers a better way to do it. I would think the ie concrete companies were forced to use a certain amount of it's capital to encourage research, would be a better way to "regulate" polluters instead of making them give money to "green" companies.

just thinking a little... carbon credits would have to be mandated, like in europe, to have any power, right? other wise it's just a "i feel better about my companies choices" thing. thus new regulations would stifle industrial growth without tech breakthroughs, and competition is the basis of free-markets.

sincerely, tell me i'm wrong, if i am, and explain why.

Buying credits from other companies is effectively investing in green technology and research if a particular industry can't yet make changes. It's better than paying the government. We cannot live in a mandate free world. There have to be some regulations and there has to be enforcement of those regulations. Giving industry a method of letting the market figure it out is much freer than simply fining industries.

BTW, as I understand it, a company can get credit for investing in their own pollution control research as well.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

The general idea behind the US system of capitalism, is that if companies are polluting too much, people can sue them for damages "ie. health problems" not just throw them at the mercy of the EPA.

The idea is that over the years, cases against polluting companies are put into the annals of common law, then years later they are codified as state/federal law. The EPA is just a way to bypass this... but it does so at a rate that is much quicker, thus has a higher potential to significantly hamper the economy.

The idea behind the free market (which is not perfect in any way) is that all corporations AND people are greedy. To satisfy the corporate CEOs needs, the company must produce something that consumers (greedy people) will actually buy. Therefore, the greed of the CEO is satisfied because they made a product that people are willing to pay their money for... both sides thereby gaining from the transaction.

Now... with the oil companies... there is competition between the oil companies themselves, but it doesn't seem terribly intense. Plus there are few few actual alternatives that are socially attainable aside from oil for fuel... it is in situations like these where the free market doesn't work so hot.

Still... the carbon credits may be unnecessarily stifling economic expansion... which has exponential losses over the course of a very long time. If we spend the next century hampering our economy due to perceived threats, and then at the end of the period learn that our initial ideas were flawed... the economy is going to be MUCH smaller that it would have otherwise (which means higher unemployment, or an overall lower standard of living).

Now... this doesn't apply to every type of pollutant, obviously reducing smog has lots of health benefits and environmental benefits...

which is why this is not a black and white situation.